With Wall Street out of fashion this election season, can Mitt Romney fend off the attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital?

Some GOP presidential rivals, especially Newt Gingrich, have laid into his private equity past, accusing him of "looting companies" and laying off workers. While those attacks may backfire now  conservatives have rallied to Romney's defense  they might work in the general election.

Newt's performance in the debates earned him a position at the top of the polls, even in Iowa. Slick Willard Romney saw the nomination slipping away from him, so he fought back the only way he knows how to fight - he unleashed the barrage of ads from the "PAC of lies" on Gingrich just before Iowa, which temporarily drove Newt's numbers way down.

The viciousness of attack ads and blatant lies were also intended to throw Newt off-balance and make irrational mistakes. That part didn't work. In fact, it backfired.

Newt coldly gave Romney a fair warning in the NH debates, basically along these lines:"If you stop telling lies about me, I won't [have to] tell the truth about you."

Even before the ad ran, it became obvious that it is Romney who is off-balance, off his game, acting "zany" and he is lousy when unscripted - "I like firing people" and comparing his work at Bain to Obama's bailout of UAW at GM and Chrysler... just two days after the warning?

What's worse, he can't explain anything (Bush redux), he just deflects by blaming Newt, either himself or through the elites in media and bought endorsers (35 Romney endorsers received contributions first). Those who think that resume-padding, privileged, mean, easily shaken or stirred, unbalanced, not thinking fast on his feet John McCain Mitt Romney is a good "electable" nominee, they belong to the Stupid Party.

Trying to deflect direct hits on Romney's exaggerated or false claims about his stellar "executive experience" or "jobs creation" or "ethics" - which will be coming from Dems, fast and furious, if he is the nominee - by labeling them as "attack on capitalism" is just playing the same game as Democrats do by accusing people who are troubled by EPA regulations, unions, failing schools and teacher's unions etc., of being "anti-environment, anti-working-class, anti-middle-class, anti-education" etc.

Don't fall for this liberal line of attack, because they can't defend the indefensible. Stating certain "inconvenient facts" about Soros, Buffett, Burkle, just to name a few, doesn't make one an anti-capitalist. This isn't about "capitalism," this is about Debunking the Myth.

Yes, because Willard Romney only ever "gets personal" against conservative candidates like Perry or Gingrich. Romney's "campaign" is asset stripping the activist base of the GOP as ruthlessly as Bain Capital liquidates U.S. manufacturers in favor of low-wage retail jobs at Staples or Dominos.

Conservatives? What part of idiots do we not understand. Is it that Newt does not have the right to attack back after Romney destroyed him in Iowa and the so called conservatives destroy him in NH. Some fun, right?

Newt was the only sitting Speaker ever to receive a reprimand and a fine. 85% of his GOP colleagues voted to reprimand him. If Newt getsw the nomination, that will be one of the biggest issues in the general campaign along with his womanizing and multiple marriages.

Newt was the only sitting Speaker ever to receive a reprimand and a fine.

He didn't "receive a fine." He was also the only Speaker or any member of Congress against whom 84(!) bogus ethics charges were filed by minority party and who was cleared on all 84(!) of them, including ruling by the IRS (under Clinton!). Ref: Pelosi Fires Back at Gingrich - FR, post #27, 2012 January 09

85% of his GOP colleagues voted to reprimand him.

Exactly, instead of screaming at the top of their lungs about hypocrisy, political witch hunt and "railroading" of their leader, without whom so many 1995 freshmen Congress-critters would not see the inside of Capitol Hill, they preferred quiet existence under Speaker Hastert... What kind of hue and cry do you think would happen if one or two ethics charges were filed against Nancy Pelosi?

"If you have no enemies, you are not important enough to have made any" - Alexandre Dumas

If Newt gets the nomination, that will be one of the biggest issues in the general campaign along with his womanizing and multiple marriages.

Of course, that's what they call "baggage" (everyone has one). In the meantime, Newt will be talking about the problems that people experience every day, and his solutions to solve them and how to restore "the shiny city on the Hill" and turn back the encroachment of the social-political-financial model, which is now bankrupting Europe and which Obama and Democrats openly embrace.

You really think the majority of people care much, beyond a couple of days of laughs, about how many of his marriages failed? Some may even relate and sympathise, but most will care about the message.

Nobody cared about failed marriages of Reagan (the only President with more than one marriage), or multiple marriages of Bob Dole, John Kerry or John McCain's... Nor anyone cared or cares about "perfect one woman" marriages by Clinton or Obama, or Romney or Santorum.

21
posted on 01/12/2012 4:36:46 PM PST
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Gingrich during his term as speaker. And yes, was sanctioned $300,000 by a 39528 House vote. It was politcal payback against a Conservative!

All the charges, save one, were dropped. The one charge not dropped at that time was a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course believed run for political purposes. The IRS later cleared the organizations connected with the “Renewing American Civilization” courses under investigation for possible tax violations.

The reason he was removed from Congress...his own members forced him out...one of whom was today’s Speaker of the House, Jon Boehner.

Oh yeah, and many of those Republicans are still in Congress. They are part of the ongoing problem of business as usual in Washignton, D.C. Under a Republican president, they added over $3 trillion to the federal deficit, shunned conservative policy in favor of Beltway influence-peddling, and so damaged the GOP brand that we lost the majority Gingrich had worked years to forge.

Do you really think I give a damn that Newts fabulous colleagues think his reemergence would be a disaster for Republicans? No.

The elections of 2010 were NOT a merit promotion; the Republicans were the only alternative in town!

If he really participated in Bain’s buying businesses and racking up debt while selling the companies equiptment turns out to be true, nothing Romney says to defend those actions is worth a cup of warm spit!

Given the fact that most Americans have ADD and that it happened close to 15 years ago, I bet many voters don’t know anything about it. The Dems will make sure they do. Newt has a huge amount of baggage and this is just one of them.

He didn't "receive a fine." He was also the only Speaker or any member of Congress against whom 84(!) bogus ethics charges were filed by minority party and who was cleared on all 84(!) of them, including ruling by the IRS (under Clinton!). Ref: Pelosi Fires Back at Gingrich - FR, post #27, 2012 January 09

He was found guilty of one and acknowledged his guilt. He paid a $300,000 fine. The Reps controlled Congress. The Ethics committee voted 7-1 to issue a reprimand. That is just a irrefutable fact. There is a 137 page House report detailing what Gingrich was found guilty of.In the final tally, 196 Republicans supported the rebuke of their own speaker, while 198 Democrats backed it. Twenty-six Republicans and two Democrats opposed it.

Exactly, instead of screaming at the top of their lungs about hypocrisy, political witch hunt and "railroading" of their leader, without whom so many 1995 freshmen Congress-critters would not see the inside of Capitol Hill, they preferred quiet existence under Speaker Hastert... What kind of hue and cry do you think would happen if one or two ethics charges were filed against Nancy Pelosi?

I think their vote reflected the inability of Gingrich to get the loyalty and support of House Reps. And he admitted his guilt.

You really think the majority of people care much, beyond a couple of days of laughs, about how many of his marriages failed? Some may even relate and sympathise, but most will care about the message.

Yes, they will care and the Dems will help them to care. Women voters won't like someone who cheated on his first two wives. It speaks to his character and morality. Reps are judged different than Dems.

Nobody cared about failed marriages of Reagan (the only President with more than one marriage), or multiple marriages of Bob Dole, John Kerry or John McCain's... Nor anyone cared or cares about "perfect one woman" marriages by Clinton or Obama, or Romney or Santorum.

As far as I know, Gingrich is the first and only three time married candidate ever to run for President. Three times is not the charm.

I am just curious. What does the amount of money a man spends at a jewelry store have to do with an election? My husband has purchased me some nice pieces of jewelry, not Tiffany, but nice. What does that have to do with character? Did they not pay for these items? Did someone get burned on the transaction? What? Tiffany’s is such a strange complaint.

No. It has been covered already ad nauseam, but the problem was not with "ethics charge" which he was cleared by the IRS, but a mistake in one filing (inconsistent with two other filings, could easily have been a typo) by a junior lawyer from law firm representing him.

Still, the real fact is that the timid, shy Republicans didn't want to go against media and "rock the boat" about the witch hunt because they were already settled and comfortable in the position of power (which they would not have in the first place, without Gingrich Revolution). They failed to protect their quarterback, leader, when the unprecedented 84(!) bogus charges were filed against him.

He agreed to pay a reimbursement, not a "fine" (he vowed to fight a fine), but finally agreed to "reimburse" the committee for the expenses they incurred in the witch hunt against him! (Ref / background in: "Cain/Gingrich 2012"?)

I think their vote reflected the inability of Gingrich to get the loyalty and support of House Reps.

What it reflected was how cowardly and envious many Republicans in the Congress were of Newt's success, and how many wanted him out because he was competitor on their "way to power" and, instead of vigorously responding to "railroading" they would prefer not to have the "lightning rod" in their midst. He had enough "loyalty and support" to push through most of Contract With America and welfare reform.

I guess he has much in common with Winston Churchill, who was warning about the dangers of Hitler's fascism and Soviet communism, help win the World War, then was promptly discarded once again, for more "bread and circuses."

That entire "railroading" and witch hunt, as well as its resolution was a travesty, but he has already decided to leave Congress, formally finalize the divorce from Marianne (they were legally separated since 1987 and lived separately for years) and get married to Callista Bisek, whom he was dating since 1993, while financially supporting Marianne and having most of their assets (from his books and lectures) and accounts in Marianne's name.

Yes, they will care and the Dems will help them to care.

And while they keep talking about his failed marriages (he already inoculated himself from that line of attack, unlike, for example, Herman Cain) he will be talking about things that people can actually relate to. Besides, as he cleverly reminded Clinton's WH alumni Stephanopolous, he is a happily married grandfather, so it's unlikely that he would be embarrassing us with Clinton's behavior in the White House.

Is there any question that Reagan, Dole or Gingrich, who were married more than once, would be more likely to care about and uphold "family values" in private and in public policy than once-married Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards or Obama?

If some can't let go of this particular "baggage," so be it - you can't please everyone, and other candidates' "baggages" will revolt other groups of constituents. Especially that we know now that much of the "baggage" is not true (like "served divorce papers to wife dying of cancer in the hospital") or that a second wife basically only cared about Newt being her "meal ticket on a gravy train". Not that he should or would talk about it, he's already humbly conceded "mistakes in his life" and moved on to a better and more fulfilling life.

As far as I know, Gingrich is the first and only three time married candidate ever to run for President.

And...? There is first time for everything. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama... As far as precedents go, this one is a mosquito-sized.

Three times is not the charm.

Seems like this has been his most successful marriage. Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth, he made some mistakes in his youth also. Is this really the one and only criterium for some of you?

36
posted on 01/12/2012 7:02:11 PM PST
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

I am just curious. What does the amount of money a man spends at a jewelry store have to do with an election?

For all the talk about class envy and class warfare, a lot of so-called "conservatives" don't like "rich people" (unless they go by the name Romney, it appears, then it's just "capitalism"). Tiffany is a symbol to them.

BTW, Callista was not buying $500K worth of jewelry, it was a line of high-limit credit that they may have needed at the time (it is a cheap insurance in case money is needed) which was untapped and has since been closed. Ref: "Cain/Gingrich 2012"?

37
posted on 01/12/2012 7:10:06 PM PST
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

The Democrats have used the rapidly changing demographics of this country, the product of immigration, to stampede many Republican politicians and elites to conclude that the party must adapt or die as Michael Barone stated on the issue of immigration. The leaders of extremist Hispanic ethnic groups trumpet their growing political power and cite the Bureau of Census projections that by 2050, one in 3 residents of this country will be Hispanic. The problem is that if the Republican Party does adapt to become more like the Democrat Party, it will die.

No. It has been covered already ad nauseam, but the problem was not with "ethics charge" which he was cleared by the IRS, but a mistake in one filing (inconsistent with two other filings, could easily have been a typo) by a junior lawyer from law firm representing him.

Read the 137 page report I linked to you. He pleaded guilty and agreed to pay the financial penalty. You can try to play word games, but the facts are the facts. Newt will have to go thru all of this again if he gets the nomination. It will be a major distraction and a negative for the voters. The fact that Reps voted overwhelmingly to issue the reprimand is an indisputable fact.

The concession was among the most dramatic of any Gingrich representative. The speaker in December admitted to having provided inaccurate information to the ethics panel. The full ethics committee on Friday voted 7 to 1, just two hours after the comments by Gingrich attorney J. Randolph Evans, to recommend a $300,000 penalty and a formal reprimand of the Georgia Republican, concluding a week of partisan wrangling that convulsed the Capitol. The committee vote is likely to be followed by approval of the sanctions by the full House when it votes on the recommendation Tuesday.

The ethics panel's subcommittee originally accepted special counsel James M. Cole's proposal that Gingrich be charged with submitting information he "knew or should have known" was false. But in exchange for Gingrich admitting his guilt, the panel altered the charge, deleting the word "knew," in what amounted to a plea bargain."

but he has already decided to leave Congress, formally finalize the divorce from Marianne (they were legally separated since 1987 and lived separately for years) and get married to Callista Bisek, whom he was dating since 1993, while financially supporting Marianne and having most of their assets (from his books and lectures) and accounts in Marianne's name.

No mention of his first wife, Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26. Gingrich and Battley have two daughters from their marriage. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after beginning an affair with Marianne Ginther. In 1984, Battley told The Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her. According to Battley, in September 1980, Gingrich and their children visited her while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce. Gingrich has disputed that account.

Although Gingrich's presidential campaign staff continued to insist in 2011 that his wife requested the divorce, court documents obtained by CNN from Carroll County, Georgia, indicated that Jackie had asked a judge to block the process stating that although "she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce... she does not desire one at this time [and] does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken.

According to L. H. Carter, Gingrich's campaign treasurer, Gingrich said of Battley: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." Gingrich has denied saying it. His supporters dismiss Carter as a disgruntled former aide who was miffed at not being asked to accompany Gingrich to Washington.

And while they keep talking about his failed marriages (he already inoculated himself from that line of attack, unlike, for example, Herman Cain) he will be talking about things that people can actually relate to. Besides, as he cleverly reminded Clinton's WH alumni Stephanopolous, he is a happily married grandfather, so it's unlikely that he would be embarrassing us with Clinton's behavior in the White House.

Calista is 23 years younger than Newt. She is his plastic trophy wife who is not an asset to him politically. In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying, "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate

Especially that we know now that much of the "baggage" is not true (like "served divorce papers to wife dying of cancer in the hospital") or that a second wife basically only cared about Newt being her "meal ticket on a gravy train". Not that he should or would talk about it, he's already humbly conceded "mistakes in his life" and moved on to a better and more fulfilling life.

This will be grist for the Dem's mill. It will be a big issue, more than likely, brought forward by Dem surrogates. Three marriages, a couple of messy divorces, adultry, and admitted "inappropriate behavior" will just be more baggage for the Green Conservative who supports amnesty, addressing manmade global warming urgently, and a supporter of the individual mandate. Now he is changing his tune on these and other issues.

And...? There is first time for everything. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama... As far as precedents go, this one is a mosquito-sized.

For you maybe, for others it will be Elephant size. I can see the National Enquirer doing some investigative reporting along with the Dem operations research folks. Look out Tiffany's.

Seems like this has been his most successful marriage. Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth, he made some mistakes in his youth also. Is this really the one and only criterium for some of you?

Rush Limbaugh is not running for President nor is Larry King. In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich became a leader of the investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with Clinton's alleged affairs. We'll see how long this one lasts.

Newt changes wives like he does religions. Gingrich was raised a Lutheran. In graduate school he was a Southern Baptist, and he converted to Catholicism, Bisek's faith, on March 29, 2009.

... an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made "glaringly inconsistent" statements to the panel's investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my previous post. It was not the ethics charge, per se, it was the mistake of filing the wrongly typed document by a junior lawyer. Gingrich admitted that he "should have known" about the filing mistake and agreed to put the issue to bed by paying for the "committee expenses" instead of fighting thankless battles in Congress with enemies on the left and the right, finalize his divorce and start a new life with the woman he's been dating for 6 years. He was not "fined" for the ethics complaint which he was charged with and cleared by the IRS!

He pleaded guilty and agreed to pay the financial penalty. You can try to play word games, but the facts are the facts.

See, now you changed the word "fine" to "financial penalty" because it relates to different issue (filing mistake), not the ethics charge, on which he was cleared. You are carefully avoiding the reason for "pleaded guilty" which was not the ethics charge. It is you who is playing the "word games" because it seems so important to you to "win" (if there is anything to "win" here) this argument, even if you have to resort to "technicality".

You seem to be overly hung up on this issue because you think it will be extremely damaging. This is political issue, not legal. If you still don't see the travesty of being charged with 84(!) ethics violation charges in 4 years and being cleared on 84(!) ethics violation charges, nothing will get through to you. As I said, subject has been covered ad nauseam.

No mention of his first wife, Jackie Battley...

Again, it's a repeat of what I already covered in previous post - Newt didn't "serve divorce papers to wife dying of cancer in the hospital as was "reported" and believed by too many for too long... ad nauseamad absurdum?

Really, that will be the "substance" of Dems campaign? We can only hope so! Remember how well repeating and recycling Clinton's and Monica Lewinsky's escapades worked for Republicans in elections of 1998? BTW, Newt was trying to turn elections to the substance and policy issues, but nobody listened, yet they still blamed "disappointing" election results on Newt.

They can talk about these things all they want, the more the merrier, because if Newt runs, the election of 2012 will be decided on the issues that are important to people (economy, jobs, deficit/debt, foreign policy...), not the issues that interest National Inquirer.

What brought down Herman Cain (because he wasn't vetted) can't bring down Newt, in part because it's old news, and because he already conceded that he "made mistakes in his personal life in the past." - he is inoculated on the issue.

Unless we demand a Caesar's wife standard for the President, Newt should do fine - acknowledged, asked forgiveness, moved on, happily married after finally finding his soulmate... Those who can't accept that and move on, it's really their [mental] problem, much more so than for Newt or the Republicans... ad nauseam.

Calista is 23 years younger than Newt. She is his plastic trophy wife ...

You're still stuck on this? I hope the Democrats keep talking about Newt's personal life and his "plastic wife" who "shops for jewelry at Tiffany's".

Rush Limbaugh's latest (fourth) wife is 20+ years younger than he is. David Mamet's wife is 18 years younger (they have 2 children, she took his Jewish faith for the sake of family harmony)... Do you suppose that is why Rush doesn't want Newt to become the nominee, lest he threw off the spotlight on his marriage during campaign?

This will be grist for the Dem's mill. It will be a big issue, more than likely, brought forward by Dem surrogates.

Excellent! I already got tired of the subject, can you imagine keep hearing this day after day and not tune out. Oops, time for the Kardashians, then for Jersey Shore and Real Wives of New Jersey, Miami, Beverly Hills, Orange County...ad nauseam

Seriously, that's the fear? While Dems will be busy daily with a National Inquirer stuff, Newt will be talking about the solutions to people's problems - and there are many - and contrasting them with the failed policies of No Hope and No Change Left. BTW, do the people who watch Kardashians vote, and if they do, for whom?

All you are proving is that you can repeat the same thing with more verbiage ad nauseam...

He was never for "amnesty" or for "cap-and-trade"; it's the same vile kind of charge as "serving divorce papers to his wife dying of cancer in the hospital... Yes, I know, you will just post a report from some source that will claim that it is "amnesty" but it has been debunked already the same way the other charges you bring up have been debunked, ad nauseam. Newt has answered these questions several times, repeating the charges as if they were accurate doesn't make them any truer.

They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich became a leader of the investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with Clinton's alleged affairs.

Yes, and Newt has said a number of times that, unlike Clinton, he never committed perjury or obstructed justice. Of course, he continued to date (or, if you prefer, "have affair, cheat with") Callista Bisek - in about two years, after finalizing his divorce from Marianne (whom he supported financially since legal separation from 1987 including keeping bank accounts and other assets in her name and giving up most of them in the divorce), Callista became his wife. I thought I covered that in my previous post. Do we really have to keep covering the same issue over and over, ad nauseam?

We'll see how long this one lasts.

I think response above shows that it's already over.

Newt changes wives like he does religions... and he converted to Catholicism, Bisek's faith, on March 29, 2009.

Actually, the other way around - changed religion to Callista's - for family harmony, because she is a life-long Catholic. Looks like his "family values" are intact - what's not to like? Yeah, covered already... ad nauseam

So, this is the recycling of the same old laundry list of things that are either already debunked or are not really big issues, except to some people who will accept nothing less than Caesar's wife standard to candidates, and which are not going to be very damaging in this campaign.

We can find some identity-politics "family values" people, who are Johnny-one-notes one-issue milquetoasts and "empty suites" with no records of achievement, like we've done before... what was Einstein's definition of insanity?

So far, based on this exchange, I think Newt's campaign strategy in general election beats National Inquirer's hands down...

42
posted on 01/12/2012 11:19:50 PM PST
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my previous post. It was not the ethics charge, per se, it was the mistake of filing the wrongly typed document by a junior lawyer. Gingrich admitted that he "should have known" about the filing mistake and agreed to put the issue to bed by paying for the "committee expenses" instead of fighting thankless battles in Congress with enemies on the left and the right, finalize his divorce and start a new life with the woman he's been dating for 6 years. He was not "fined" for the ethics complaint which he was charged with and cleared by the IRS!

LOL. Of course it was an ethics charge. He lied to the committee by making false statements. When he tried to blame his lawyer, the lawyer resigned stating that Gingrich reviewed the material and was aware of what was in it. He paid a financial penalty. It was part of the reprimand.

In exchange for Gingrichs admissions, the committee dropped the other counts against him. The Internal Revenue Service later ruled the two nonprofit organizations hadnt acted improperly under tax laws, a decision Gingrich today cites as evidence that he was exonerated.

The ethics committee and IRS investigations were completely different things, said Jeffrey Yablon, an attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in Washington D.C., who represented one of the parties.

The IRS investigation was not of Gingrich, it was of the foundation, Yablon said. The Gingrich investigation was really quite different. It was an investigation of Gingrich personally and addressed different questions.

See, now you changed the word "fine" to "financial penalty" because it relates to different issue (filing mistake), not the ethics charge, on which he was cleared. You are carefully avoiding the reason for "pleaded guilty" which was not the ethics charge. It is you who is playing the "word games" because it seems so important to you to "win" (if there is anything to "win" here) this argument, even if you have to resort to "technicality".

What brought down Herman Cain (because he wasn't vetted) can't bring down Newt, in part because it's old news, and because he already conceded that he "made mistakes in his personal life in the past." - he is inoculated on the issue.

Innoculated my a$$. He is no more innoculated than Romney is with Romneycare. The 137 page House report will be the road map for attacks on him and his character. He was the only sitting Speaker to ever receive a reprimand and the vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan. The Reps controlled the House so to call this a partisan witch hunt is ridiculous. He admitted his guilt.

Rush Limbaugh's latest (fourth) wife is 20+ years younger than he is. David Mamet's wife is 18 years younger (they have 2 children, she took his Jewish faith for the sake of family harmony)... Do you suppose that is why Rush doesn't want Newt to become the nominee, lest he threw off the spotlight on his marriage during campaign?

Now you are getting silly. Rush Limbaugh, David Mamet and anyone else you want to include are not running for President of the United States and Commander in Chief. Gingrich's messy personal life will be a target were he to be the nominee. It is part of his baggage.

Excellent! I already got tired of the subject, can you imagine keep hearing this day after day and not tune out. Oops, time for the Kardashians, then for Jersey Shore and Real Wives of New Jersey, Miami, Beverly Hills, Orange County... ad nauseam

This is precisely what it will become. The public will become emeshed in Gingrich's reality show detracting and distracting from his message and the spotlight will be on Gingrich's personal life rather than being a referendum on Obama's policies and performance. No doubt, there will be juicy disclosures during the campaign revealing some unknown tidbit about the various affairs and Newt's womanizing. The MSM will have a field day.

As someone who has worked five years on the immigration issue as part of a grassroots organization that lobbies on the Hill and in Richmond, this is amnesty. Newt legalizes the status of lawbreakers by allowing them to stay and work here. He has them pay a fine, learn English, and be legalized. The ridiculous proposition that just because he intends to prevent them from gaining citizenship is just Orwellian use of language to disguise and fool the gullible. It is pure and simple amnesty not much different from McCain-Kennedy and Hagel-Martinez.

Newt is an amnesty supporter. Anyone who says he isn't, doesn't know the issue.

So far, based on this exchange, I think Newt's campaign strategy in general election beats National Inquirer's hands down...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.